Comments:

(3) Quantitative

Contract: Five
no-trump, played by East

Lead: Small heart

Result: Twelve
tricks, NS+690

Present: All players
except West

The Facts: After
opening of dummy East called TD, explaining that he was told
dummy would have both minors. If he have known the actual distribution
was possible, he might have led otherwise. The explanation is
not in line with the actual hand. North/South showed their system-details,
that state 3ª to be "Minor-suit Stayman". The convention card
shows "3ª - minor interest".

The Director: Deemed
that there are discrepancies between the given information,
the convention card and the system details, resulting in damage
to the opponents. The ruling was a consensus after discussion
between the Directors and some players.

Ruling: Incomplete
information given

Score adjusted to 5NT-2,
NS -200 to both sides

Relevant Laws:

Law 20F - 75C

North/South appealed.

The Players:

The appellants commented
that the system agreement between North/South is 'Minor-suit
Stayman'. While different pairs play this convention differently
the specific arrangement of this pair is that the bid shows
both minors with mild slam interest. The primary evidence is
the supporting system notes, duly furnished after the Director
was summoned. The notes say "Minor Suit Stayman, mild slam interest,
opener bids 4§/¨ to set the suit and invite cue-bid". If 3ª
promises only one of the minors, there is no way opener can
set the suit on his own. So North did give the correct system
meaning to East when he wrote 'minors'. As for South, he realized
that he had made the wrong bid (3ª) after the tray was pushed
to the other side (systematically he should go through 3§, Stayman,
then rebid 4¨ to show this type of hand). Consequently, for
fear of complicating matters, he dared not bid 4¨ over partner's
3NT (signoff) and instead, invited with a quantitative 4NT.
The good diamond slam that was bid at the other table was thus
missed.

The respondents said that
North told East that South had both minors when asked about
his 3ª bid. Consequently East was damaged as he was talked out
of his rational § lead.

At the appeal East said
that he would have asked further questions if the answer had
been Minor Suit Stayman

The Committee:

Noted that the player
explained "Minors", the convention card said "Minor interest"
and the convention card said "Minor Suit Stayman". The Committee
felt a club lead was unlikely anyway, but possible, and decided
on a weighted assigned score under Law 12C3 to reflect this.

The Chairman expressed
his worry that players did not know their system and felt at
this level that consequent results were not what should decide
bridge matches.

The Committee's decision:

Score adjusted to 80%
of 5NT+1 by North, NS +690, 20% of 5NT-2, NS -200 to both sides